Classical Zionism vs Modern (Dispensational) Zionism

[Atwood]

Linda you can't make up meaning to scripture. You have to rightly divide between the literal and the spiritual, which you are not doing. You know that Jesus would never command us to hate our mother and father so you CHANGE the definition of hate to make it fit.

One principle of interpretation (while you study to show yourself approved, not taking the easy way out of pretending the English is the final authority) is called "The analogy of the faith." No scripture is of private interpretation; it must be taken in context of the entire Word of God. So if someone takes one passage & interprets it so that it agrees with all scripture, that is not "changing" God's Word.

God is trying to show you something in this verse and your changing the meaning of the verse instead of believing it literally word for word. You're totally missing the message that God is trying to tell you.

How do you know what the Lord is trying to show this person? Your comment reminds me of Job's 3 "friends."

You may as well argue that "I am the door" implies that the Lord has hinges. Part of good interpretation is recognizing hyperbole if it is present. When will you literally pluck out your eyes?

[/quote]The bible says hate and it LITERALLY means hate.[/quote]

"If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. "

You are wrongly dividing the word.

You should say, "The Bible says μισέω, and thus we must consider the range of meaning of miseō in the scripture to determine its meaning."

BDAG Lexicon:

μισέω . . . depending on the context, this verb ranges in mng. from ‘disfavor’ to ‘detest’. The Eng. term ‘hate’ generally suggests affective connotations that do not always do justice esp. to some Semitic shame-honor oriented use of μ.=שנא (e.g. Dt 21:15, 16) in the sense ‘hold in disfavor, be disinclined to, have relatively little regard for’.
1. to have a strong aversion to, hate, detest
2. to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ [self] Lk 14:26. Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f)."

believe every single word in the bible and never change it to fit your preconceived ideas.

Yes, believe every word, which words are Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Don't change them to fit your preconceived fancies from modern or Elizabethan English, which did not even exist when God wrote His Bible. Of course it might require a little work, a little "study to show yourself approved."

 

[Atwood]

yes, I cannot defend what I said,.

Friend Ukorin, I was not accusing you of anything!
This was just my comment on DTS.

 

[Ukorin]

I suppose what I'm talking about is more than just the dual interpretations directly revealed in Scripture, but rather the indirect revealing.

This would be done by using the formats given by the writer of Hebrews, the works of Paul, John, and even Christ himself, to reveal the spiritual interpretations/spiritual fulfillment for other passages.

Even this is getting deeper than needed to come to a Traditional Zionist view.
I believe that when Paul describes 'in-grafting' and becoming the 'seed of Abraham' through Christ, it is clear that we have become part of Israel, but obviously in a spiritual sense not physical.
(this explains why we are not subject to the 'letter of the law', but to the spirit of the law,
and why we are not subject to the societal and ceremonial laws)


This distinction comes in to play when discussing the Promises given to Israel.
Either we gain all of the Promises, including the physical ones (which is easily refuted)
or we gain nothing from them (which seems to deny that we have been brought into their group)
or we gain only the spiritual aspects of the Promises.

 

[KJV1611]

BDAG Lexicon:

μισέω . . . depending on the context, this verb ranges in mng. from ‘disfavor’ to ‘detest’. The Eng. term ‘hate’ generally suggests affective connotations that do not always do justice esp. to some Semitic shame-honor oriented use of μ.=שנא (e.g. Dt 21:15, 16) in the sense ‘hold in disfavor, be disinclined to, have relatively little regard for’.
1. to have a strong aversion to, hate, detest
2. to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment (Gn 29:31; Dt 21:15, 16) Mt 6:24; Lk 16:13. τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ J 12:25 or ἑαυτοῦ [self] Lk 14:26. Ro 9:13 (Mal 1:2f)."

Ok Atwood, you've made it absolutely clear to me lol. If I'm going to come to Christ I have to disfavor, detest, disregard or have little regard for my father, mother, wife and children.

Is that what you're saying Jesus means?

 

[Atwood]

The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of most of the book of Revelation.​

There is this IMHO very valuable preterist archives site which has all kinds of goodies for free download. There I discovered that there seem to be many varieties of "preterism," ranging even to the POV that all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. So I guess for some, Christ already returned. Maybe there are 50 varieties of preterism?

Now if a person merely takes the POV that all of the Tribulation passages have been fulfilled, Daniel's 70th week was already finished long ago, at least such a person can believe in the imminence of the Rapture, of Christ's return. I think this POV has that advantage over the main Post Toasties view.

I spose for a preterist the Mt of Olives is split only figuratively. Perhaps it was figurative for the invention of the banana split (by Nero?)

 

[Atwood]

Ok Atwood, you've made it absolutely clear to me lol. If I'm going to come to Christ I have to disfavor, detest, disregard or have little regard for my father, mother, wife and children.

You forgot yourself & your psychē.

What I am saying is exactly what I said.

 

[Atwood]

Even this is getting deeper than needed to come to a Traditional Zionist view.
I believe that when Paul describes 'in-grafting' and becoming the 'seed of Abraham' through Christ, it is clear that we have become part of Israel, but obviously in a spiritual sense not physical.
(this explains why we are not subject to the 'letter of the law', but to the spirit of the law,
and why we are not subject to the societal and ceremonial laws)


This distinction comes in to play when discussing the Promises given to Israel.
Either we gain all of the Promises, including the physical ones (which is easily refuted)
or we gain nothing from them (which seems to deny that we have been brought into their group)
or we gain only the spiritual aspects of the Promises.

"Seed of Abraham" is not "Israel." There is this universal provision to the Abe covenant, covering all the nations of the world.

 

[Atwood]

I'm not sure where you got your information, but Ryrie is firmly in the traditional dispensationalist camp. In Dispensationalism, which is a 1990s update of his Dispensationalism Today, he takes Progressive Dispensationalism to task.

The primary trail-blazing proponents of PD are Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising (and Robert Saucy). Traditional dispensationalists think it has gone way to far (and I agree), while Covenant theologians think it is a step in the right direction - which confirms that it is simply moderate covenant theology rather than any real type of dispensationalism.

Well, Doctor Kennedy,

I am a tad curious. How did Ryrie update his Disp Today? Changes? Deletions? Additions?

 

[Ukorin]

"Seed of Abraham" is not "Israel." There is this universal provision to the Abe covenant, covering all the nations of the world.

I have heard this assertion before, but I don't see where this interpretation is founded.

It is true that part of the Abrahamic Covenant is that 'and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you' and again a later clarification 'and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed'. Taking part of that Covenant is separate than simply being affected by it. We are not simply benefiting from that covenant, but heirs of it (Ephesians 3:5,6). We are not just blessed by the offspring (Christ), but have become offspring (seed).
*another great example of dual interpretation: Jesus the physical seed prophesied, and His followers as the spiritual seed realized.*

Ephesian 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

This cannot mean that we have been granted citizenship of physical Israel, but certainly means we have been granted citizenship together with the OT saints of Israel.
In this sense, they were dual citizens, of both physical and spiritual Israel. Today we saved Gentiles are citizens with those OT saints, in the spiritual,
and there is still dual citizenship for the saved Jewish people, reaping both the physical and the spiritual Promises.

 

[KJV1611]

We are not just blessed by the offspring (Christ), but have become offspring (seed).
*another great example of dual interpretation: Jesus the physical seed prophesied, and His followers as the spiritual seed realized.*

Now I see what you're talking about. Here's another one.
Jesus the son of God did not see corruption the two days he descended.
Jesus the Word of God will not see corruption the two days (two thousand years) he is ascended.

 

[Ukorin]

Now I see what you're talking about. Here's another one.
Jesus the son of God did not see corruption the two days he descended.
Jesus the Word of God will not see corruption the two days (two thousand years) he is ascended.

Although what you have said is very true of Christ, as He is certainly incorruptible,
I'd rather not get quite that deep into spiritualization.

The issue being that a Believer in the early Church could insert 200 into that equation, and be proven wrong as time passed, and Christ remained ascended.

I am focusing more on the direct NT and OT parallels. Closer to what you have on the new wine thread.

 

[KJV1611]

Although what you have said is very true of Christ, as He is certainly incorruptible,
I'd rather not get quite that deep into spiritualization.

The issue being that a Believer in the early Church could insert 200 into that equation, and be proven wrong as time passed, and Christ remained ascended.

I am focusing more on the direct NT and OT parallels. Closer to what you have on the new wine thread.

Sure no problem. One more comment on this one. You missed the time prophecy of the return of Christ in that analogy. One day is as a thousand years, 200 could not be inserted into the equation. Christ will return approximately 2000 years from the time of his death. Old Testament second witness to that is here:

Jos 3:4 Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it, that ye may know the way by which ye must go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore.

 

[Ukorin]

Sure no problem. One more comment on this one. You missed the time prophecy of the return of Christ in that analogy. One day is as a thousand years, 200 could not be inserted into the equation. Christ will return approximately 2000 years from the time of his death. Old Testament second witness to that is here:

Jos 3:4 Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it, that ye may know the way by which ye must go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore.

It'll do some more study on it.
I have the willingness to investigate allegory, but I do so warily.
In such cases, it seems more like hidden prophecy, yet to be revealed,
whereas I have much more confidence in taking what is already revealed in the NT, and connecting the OT parallels, types, and antitypes.